SIST-TS CEN/TS 18055-2:2026

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-december-2026
Poštne storitve - Usklajeni dogodki sledenja in izsleditve - 1. del: Povratni tok
Postal services - Harmonized track and trace events - Part 2: Return flow
Postalische Dienstleistungen - Harmonisierte track and trace Ereignisse
Services postaux - Opérations harmonisées de suivi et de localisation - Partie 2 :
Processus de retour
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN/TS 18055-2:2026
ICS:
03.240 Poštne storitve Postal services
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

CEN/TS 18055-2
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
SPÉCIFICATION TECHNIQUE
October 2026
TECHNISCHE SPEZIFIKATION
ICS 03.240
English Version
Postal services - Harmonized track and trace events -
Part 2: Return flow
Services postaux - Opérations harmonisées de suivi et Postalische Dienstleistungen - Harmonisierte track and
de localisation - Partie 2 : Processus de retour trace Ereignisse
This Technical Specification (CEN/TS) was approved by CEN on 14 September 2026 for provisional application.

The period of validity of this CEN/TS is limited initially to three years. After two years the members of CEN will be requested to
submit their comments, particularly on the question whether the CEN/TS can be converted into a European Standard.

CEN members are required to announce the existence of this CEN/TS in the same way as for an EN and to make the CEN/TS
available promptly at national level in an appropriate form. It is permissible to keep conflicting national standards in force (in
parallel to the CEN/TS) until the final decision about the possible conversion of the CEN/TS into an EN is reached.

CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and
United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATIO N

EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUN G

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2026 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. CEN/TS 18055-2:2026 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.

Contents Page
European foreword . 4
Introduction . 5
1 Scope . 7
2 Normative references . 7
3 Terms and definitions . 7
4 General. 11
4.1 Return flow process start and stop . 11
5 Return flow scenarios . 12
5.1 General. 12
5.2 Return flow categories . 12
5.2.1 General. 12
5.2.2 Unsuccessful delivery of the parcel . 13
5.2.3 Return to sender or equivalent party . 15
5.2.4 Service for recipients to send (parts of) a received shipment back . 17
5.2.5 Failure to meet regulatory or cross-border requirements . 18
6 Harmonized track and trace events . 21
6.1 General. 21
6.2 Goal of harmonized track and trace events . 21
6.3 Guiding principles, reasons for an event creation . 21
6.3.1 Current situation and starting points . 21
6.3.2 Principle 1. Physical events only . 22
6.3.3 Principle 2. Tracking is about events that have taken place . 22
6.3.4 Principle 3. When the legal entity responsible for the item changes. 22
6.3.5 Principle 4. When the country of location is changed (excluding transit locations). 22
6.3.6 Principle 5. When the event creates a situation that the end user should know about . 22
7 The harmonized events . 23
7.1 Selection of the events . 23
7.1.1 General. 23
7.1.2 Delivery process unsuccessful . 23
7.1.3 Item delivered . 23
7.1.4 Item in the hands of the first LSP . 23
7.1.5 LSP managed disposal completed . 23
7.1.6 Item is on transport to country of return location . 23
7.1.7 Item arrived in country of return location . 23
7.1.8 Item held by customs . 23
7.1.9 Item released by customs . 23
7.1.10 Item underway for delivery to return location. 24
7.1.11 Delivery to return location successful . 24
7.2 Unsuccessful return flow. 24
8 Data sets for the events . 24
8.1 Introduction . 24
8.2 Basic data set per event . 25
9 Implementation of the harmonized events . 29
Annex A (informative) Mapping events to existing (standard) event lists . 30
Bibliography . 34
European foreword
This document (CEN/TS 18055-2:2026) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 320 “Transport,
Logistics and Postal Services”, the secretariat of which is held by AFNOR.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent
rights. CEN shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
This document has been prepared under a standardization request addressed to CEN by the European
Commission. The Standing Committee of the EFTA States subsequently approves these requests for its Member
States.
Any feedback and questions on this document should be directed to the users’ national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found on the CEN website.
According to the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organisations of the following
countries are bound to announce this Technical Specification: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania,
Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United Kingdom.
Introduction
E-Commerce is a very large industry today and it keeps growing rapidly all over the world. E-Commerce relies
on logistic service providers (LSPs) for both the deliveries of orders and parcels to their intended recipients and
the return flows coming back from intended recipients.
CEN/TS 18055-1 describes a set of harmonized events that can be used to provide visibility of the whereabouts
of the parcel in a way that is consistent and easy-to-understand for the sender and recipient of the parcel
regardless of how many and which LSP are involved in the delivery (forward flow) of the parcel.
This document focuses on the business requirements related to the return flows of parcels and what that means
for the provision of harmonized events similar to the previous CEN work for the forward flow. Return flows are
an issue for many (online) retailers and the LSP.
In a recent study (by Blue Yonder) [7], 68 % of merchants across E-Commerce reported that return rates
have increased over the past 12 months, and 63 % confirmed that returns are a “significant” or “very
significant” problem for their business.
To further support that observation, a recent DHL Trend Report on E-Commerce [9] highlighted that 54 % of
1)
online shoppers return items at least “a few times” per year .
Not all of the challenges within the context of return flows are related to the harmonized events that this
document will cover. However, international track and trace capabilities are a crucial element of cross border
E-Commerce also for the return flows. Effective, reliable and trustworthy track and trace events are needed in
this context also because the products contained in a returned parcel can represent significant value for both
the recipient returning the goods and the E-Commerce company (merchant) who sent the goods in the first place.
Therefore, original recipients as well as merchants are keen on following their returned order via track and
trace services.
These services, the events provided, their descriptions and the quality of these events vary from LSP to LSP.
This leads to an opaque returns supply chain with limited or no visibility on the progress of the returned
E-Commerce item on its way to its destination, causing uncertainty for the original recipients as well as the
merchants, increasing call centre calls and costs whilst reducing the trust in cross border e-Commerce services.
In some cases, over 20 events with unclear descriptions, or even repetitive descriptions that make no sense to
the original recipient of the E-Commerce item or to the merchant are shared.
An increase of the quality of track and trace services with a focus on the recipient and merchant, will lead to an
increase of consumer trust and supply chain cost reductions. In turn, this will lead to growth of cross border
E-Commerce both internationally and domestically.
This document will focus on events related to cross border E-commerce to and from Europe, to and from non-
European countries as well as cross border E-commerce within Europe. A generic increase of trust in cross
border E-Commerce will be beneficial for the flows within Europe, potentially leading to an increase in cross
border trade within the European Union.
The main purpose of this document is to provide a minimum set of progress updates (events) that are
well-defined and easy to understand for the original recipient of the returned e-commerce items and
the e-commerce company associated with those items.

1)
DHL 2025 E-Commerce Trends Report page 33 (37% a few times + 17 at least once a month).
Why do recipients and E-Commerce companies want specific Events to be recorded?
— To have the independent evidence for the original recipient that the parcel or goods has/have been
returned. That evidence would
— entitle the original recipient to a refund for the goods;
— transfer responsibility for the goods/parcel to the LSP.
— To have the “proof” that the returned parcel has reached the place agreed/decided by the original sender
(the return location).
— To have harmonized events related to the transportation chain of the returned parcel that make sense to
the consumer/merchant.
The starting point for defining this set of events is the consumer buying the goods to the E-Commerce company.
Therefore, in this document, when describing the individual events related to the progress of the return of an
E-Commerce item, the language used is the language of the consumer.
This stands in contrast to most other technical specifications for events that take the perspective of the LSPs
and therefore assume a level of knowledge about transport and logistics operations that is simply not there
with consumers. Furthermore, this Technical Specification aims to describe only the events that deliver the
most useful information to the consumer and the E-Commerce company.
It is up to the LSP how to run its business, and internal standards are in place for the management of internal
processes. Internal events are considered to be of no interest to a recipient, with the exception of some of the
last mile events which are mentioned later in this document.
This document contains a list of 11 track and trace events for LSPs to share with the original recipients of
E-Commerce items or the merchant associated with those items to update them regarding the progress of
delivery execution.
Clause 6 describes these events in detail. Clause 5 covers the most common scenarios that cause the parcels or
goods to be returned to the merchant. The events most useful for merchant and/or original recipient will vary
across the scenarios. For each scenario a table of the most useful events is provided.
The document also includes a description of the basic data set for these events. Clause 8 provides more detail
on that.
This short list of events (defined from the original recipient and merchant perspective) can be a starting point
for LSPs currently not providing any tracking events as well as a reference for LSPs improving the transparency
of their track and trace solution also for the return flows.
Although this document has been developed with E-Commerce and cross border shipments in mind,
harmonization of track and trace events can also benefit other logistic flows, such as domestic
shipments and direct (offline) shop orders, which can include transport units larger than parcels.
Therefore, this document can be applicable for goods flows and parcel flows outside the scope of cross-border
E-Commerce that this document covers. E.g. a number of the events mentioned can be applied also in domestic
contexts and/or for transportation of goods that have been traded without using the Internet.
In general, an LSP will have identified and defined events for itself. Therefore, it is fully expected that LSPs will
need to translate or map their own events to the events defined in this document.
Annex A contains a mapping of these 11 events to a number of track and trace event lists currently in wide use.
Annex A is in no way intended to be comprehensive; many LSPs will need to make the mapping from their own
event set to the set in this document for themselves.
1 Scope
This document covers the track and trace events for the return flow of e-Commerce items, more specifically, the
events that are most useful to the original recipient (if any) and the E-Commerce company that sent the item in
the first place.
It provides a minimum set of events formulated in language that is understood by sellers and buyers of E-
Commerce products. The logistic service providers (LSPs) involved can “map” their own internal events to the
events described in this document.
A return flow is always linked to a forward flow that is the subject of CEN/TS 18055-1.
This document aims to describe only those events that are related to the returns flow. Therefore, this document
defines and describes the exact moment that the forward flows stop and the associated return flow starts.
This document covers the following four cases of return flows:
— unsuccessful delivery (item remains in possession of the last mile operator);
— return to sender or equivalent party (delivered and later returned parcel);
— a service for recipients to send (parts of) a received shipment back;
— returns caused by failure to meet regulatory or cross-border procedure requirements.
Each of these cases will be covered in separate clauses of the document.
NOTE There are some processes in case 3 that need to occur before the parcel enters into the Returns Flow and they
2)
are generally executed by the E-Commerce company (or a party acting on its behalf) .
This document will not describe those “precursor” processes in any detail, but it will describe the minimum
requirements in terms of information needed by the first LSP to be able to start to execute the Return Flow
effectively and efficiently. The precursor process is similar to the RMA (= Return Materials Authorization)
process used in business-to-business environments.
This document does not cover the logistical flows within the facilities of the producers and sellers of the items.
These fall outside the responsibility of the CEN/TC 331 domain.
This document does not cover all events necessary for an LSP to track items within its own facilities.
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
ISO, IEC and UN/CEFACT maintain terminology databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https://www.iso.org/obp/
— IEC Electropedia: available at https://www.electropedia.org/

2)
Some LSP in some geographies offer a service (agreed with an E-Commerce company) that will allow the recipient of a
parcel to directly interact with the LSP to initiate the return flow of parcels back to the E-Commerce company.
— UN/CEFACT Web Vocabulary available at https://vocabulary.uncefact.org/about
3.1
parcel
postal item containing goods, with or without commercial value, other than an item of correspondence, with a
weight not exceeding 31,5 kg
[SOURCE: Postal services Directive 97/67/EC amended by EU Parcel Delivery Regulation (2018/644)]
3.2
E-Commerce
trading of goods over the internet
Note 1 to entry: According to Britannica Money [8], E-Commerce covers “maintaining relationships and conducting
business transactions that include selling information, services, and goods by means of computer telecommunications
networks. It consists of business-to-consumer and business-to-business commerce as well as internal organizational
transactions that support those activities.”
Note 2 to entry: In this document, the definition has been simplified to better fit its context.
3.3
E-Commerce company
company engaged in E-Commerce
Note 1 to entry: Examples include, but are not limited to, manufacturers, shops, web-shops, e-merchants, platforms,
marketplaces, intermediaries, and information service providers.
3.4
E-Commerce item
parcel containing products or trade items bought/sold as part of an E-Commerce transaction
Note 1 to entry: This definition means that this document covers a specific sub-set of services provided within the UPU
context. Refer to UPU standards and documentation for the determination of that sub-set.
3.5
shipment
identifiable collection of one or more trade items (available to be) transported together from the seller (original
consignor or sender) to the buyer (recipient or final consignee)
Note 1 to entry:
A shipment can only be destined for one recipient (buyer).
A shipment can be made up of some or all trade items from one or more sales orders.
A shipment can have only one Customs UCR (Unique Consignment Reference).
A shipment can form part or all of a consignment or can be transported in different consignments.
[SOURCE: UN/CEFACT; Bibliography [11]]
3.6
consignment (transport contract)
consignment is a separately identifiable collection of consignment items (available to be) transported from one
consignor to one consignee via one or more modes of transport as specified in one single transport service
contractual document
Note 1 to entry:
A consignment can only have one transport service buyer.
A consignment can only have one transport service provider.
A consignment can only have one consignor.
A consignment can only have one consignee.
The transport service buyer can be either the consignor or the consignee.
A consignment is made up of one or more consignment items.
A consignment can be made up of some or all trade items (aggregated into consignment items) from one or more shipments.
[SOURCE: UN/CEFACT; Bibliography [11]]
3.7
sender
natural or legal person responsible for originating postal items
Note 1 to entry: The sender’s name and address can be written in the sender (address) zone on the shipping label.
UPU S67-2 – Item Label; Clause 8.2. as well as CEN/TS 17073 “sender zone” in Clause 4.3.3 Label zones.
Note 2 to entry: In the context of this document, the sender role is generally performed by the E-Commerce company, but
they could have delegated the execution of the role to a third party, e.g. a warehousing service provider. Even in the case
of “outsourced execution”, in this document, the party outsourcing to a third party is still considered to be the sender.
[SOURCE: Directive 2002/39/EC and 2008/6/EC]
3.8
recipient
natural or legal person to whom the parcel is destined, whose name and address are written in the addressee
zone on the shipping label
Note 1 to entry: This can be a physical person or a legal entity (such as a company, an internal department, or a family).
[SOURCE: CEN/TS 18055-1]
3.9
journey (of goods/items)
set of consecutive transport movements and other logistics activities needed to move the goods or items from
the seller’s facility to the buyer’s (recipient) facility as specified in the sales order (trade transaction)
3.10
transport movement
conveyance (physical carriage) of people, goods, or other objects from place to place
[SOURCE: UN/CEFACT recommendation 24; [12]]
3.11
first mile
transportation of goods from a seller’s premises or warehouse to the next hub from where the goods are
forwarded
Note 1 to entry: This transportation can be done by the seller or sender itself. E.g. MSMEs or private senders can take their
e-Commerce item to a Post Offices or Parcel Shop, which is then considered the first transportation hub in the items journey
to the buyer or recipient.
3.12
last mile
final part of a journey of goods (e.g. an E-Commerce item) comprising the movement to the final destination from
a transportation hub near to that destination
Note 1 to entry: A collection point is considered to be the end of the journey when the goods are picked up by a recipient.
Transportation from the collection point to the recipient premises is then under the responsibility of the recipient.
3.13
transportation hub
place of any size where cargo or goods are exchanged between vehicles and/or between modes of transport
3.14
collection point
place where the intended recipient of goods or items can retrieve those goods or items
Note 1 to entry: Places include but are not limited to post offices, stores with a service desk, and so-called “parcel lockers”.
3.15
return location
location to which the LSP has to deliver an E-commerce item after the associated forward flow has completed
(regardless of the success of the forward flow)
3.16
logistic service provider
LSP
organisation that provides transport or logistic services
Note 1 to entry: In this document this includes postal operators, couriers, express and parcel carrying operators. In case
there is some kind of temporary storage involved in the end-to-end journey; the storage service provider is also included
in the term LSP.
3.17
first mile operator
LSP responsible for executing the first mile transportation
3.18
last mile operator
LSP responsible for executing the last mile transportation
3.19
accepted
status indicating that a party has taken possession of the parcel and also taken the responsibilities associated
with the parcel
3.20
delivered
status indicating the LSP is no longer in possession of the parcel and the LSP has completed its responsibilities
to make the parcel available to the recipient
Note 1 to entry: This definition does not imply that another party (e.g. the recipient) has accepted the parcel.
3.21
passive return
return that occurs when a parcel is at a pick-up point and the intended recipient fails to collect the parcel the
parcel in a set period. When that period expires, the parcel automatically enters into a return flow
3.22
active return
return that occurs when the recipient has handled the parcel and the recipient then returned the parcel
3.23
relabel
activity to create new transport labels with unit identifier values different from the original identifier values
Note 1 to entry: This definition explicitly excludes creating new transport labels that use the same identifier values. That
recreation of the transport labels will be needed in case the original transport label has become unusable e.g. through
damage or poor print quality. Another example is when the routing for the item changed and thus the transport needs to
be replaced showing the new routing information.
4 General
4.1 Return flow process start and stop
An “obvious” starting point for the returns flow process would be the handover moment from the consumer
(original recipient) to the first LSP involved in the returns flow process. There is however, an issue with that
“starting point”.
In the TS for the forward flow, it is indicated that ultimately the item could not be delivered to the intended
recipient at all. That means that in that scenario, there is not an original recipient that can hand the item back
over to the delivery LSP. It also means that the item remained in the possession of the LSP at all times and the
item is even still intact, meaning that it has the original item identification and label on it.
Furthermore, DPD UK (an LSP) offers a return service for merchants where the consumer records their desire
to return goods in the portal of DPD UK. Clearly, this occurs (well) before the handover moment mentioned
above.
In Clause 7, this document unambiguously defines the exact moment (event) that marks the end of the forward
flow and the start of the return flow for three return flow scenarios.
Clause 7 also covers where and when the return flow process ends for each of the scenarios.
5 Return flow scenarios
5.1 General
There are numerous reasons why a parcel can enter into a return flow. This document classifies the various
return flows into four categories.
5.2 Return flow categories
5.2.1 General
Return flows can be caused by:
1) unsuccessful delivery (item remains in possession of the last mile operator);
2) “return to sender or equivalent party” (delivered and later returned parcel);
3) a service for recipients to send (parts of) a received shipment back;
4) failure to meet regulatory or cross-border procedure requirements.
Those four scenarios cover all return flows that the experts compiling this document are aware of. Each of the
scenarios will be covered in separate clauses below.
In the industry, the terms “active” and “passive” returns are also used.
Passive returns are covered under the categories:
— 5.2.2 “unsuccessful delivery”, and
— 5.2.5 “failure to meet regulatory or cross-border procedure requirements”.
Active returns have been split into two categories:
— 5.2.3 “Return to sender or equivalent party”, and
— 5.2.4 “Service for recipients to send (parts of) a received shipment back”.
The return flow for a specific item will depend on the specific arrangements (contracts) for the item.
Nevertheless, this document distinguishes three groups of end points for any given return flow:
a) original sender location;
b) location in the same country as the intended recipient’s location;
c) location in a country different from both intended recipient’s and original sender’s countries.
It is not uncommon that a sender located a long distance away from the intended recipient has arranged for
return locations much closer to the intended recipient. Some of those can be in the same country as the intended
recipient, but in many cases the locations are not in the same country. This also applies to the disposal locations
for parcels that could not be delivered to the intended recipients.
5.2.2 Unsuccessful delivery of the parcel
Large numbers of parcels are never accepted by a receiver or recipient for a very wide range of reasons.
Among them incorrect delivery address information, active in-person refusal of delivery or failure to collect the
item within a set period.
Whatever the reason, the LSP remains in possession of the parcel. Furthermore, the parcel remains intact also
in terms of labelling and identification. This means that the LSP that undertook the delivery as part of the
transport contract will be the party that has the primary responsibility to deal with the unsuccessful delivery.
The failure to deliver the parcel actually means that the return flow already starts at the end of the forward flow
process. The LSP will have to report that the delivery was not successful. After recording an agreed number of
“unsuccessful delivery attempt” events (see Table 1), the forward flow process will be considered
unsuccessful by both the LSP and sender.
The last mile postal operator often has no commercial relationship with the sender of the parcel. The rules of
the postal networks then decide when the delivery process is considered to be unsuccessful and also how to
deal with the unsuccessful delivery. Only in case the last mile LSP (which can be a global parcel, express or
courier services provider) has a direct commercial relationship with the sender, the LSP can have agreed
specific arrangements with the sender regarding how to deal with the parcels that could not be delivered.
The final unsuccessful delivery attempt would also be the first official event for the Return flow.
There are several events being recorded by LSPs that can trigger this harmonized event.
For instance, “delivery refused” automatically triggers the “delivery process unsuccessful” event.
Similarly, when the parcel is in a collection point for more than an agreed number of days (e.g. 15 days), this
automatically triggers the same harmonized event.
In principle there two main approaches that determine what to do with the undelivered parcel:
1) The LSP will deliver the undelivered parcel to a location specified by the sender.
This location can be specified on the parcel (return address) and/or can be included in the transport
contract; it could also be agreed on a case-by-case basis;
2) The sender authorities the LSP to dispose of the parcel and its contents. In those cases, there will generally
be an on-going (standing) contact between the sender and the LSP or industry standard rules governing
this process. This document will not cover any events related with this process, except the event confirming
that the parcel has completed the process: “LSP managed disposal completed”.
NOTE In the postal environment, the process “treat as abandoned” for international postal items can apply in case the
sender is unknown or cannot be contacted. The sender can indicate that this process be used when sending the item with
the first LSP, which will then also be indicated on the CN22 or CN23 documents related to the postal item. The item can
then be held for a certain period, during which attempts are made to contact the sender or recipient. If these attempts fail,
the item is eventually disposed of or auctioned off, depending on the postal service’s policies. It is a way to manage
undeliverable mail efficiently while adhering to legal and regulatory standards. Once the process for “treat as abandoned”
has completed, the LSP will record the event “LSP managed disposal completed”.
This document covers the events related with the first approach (send parcel to specified return location) only,
with the exception of the event “LSP managed disposal completed” related to the second approach.
In principle, the transport execution process for this approach is very similar (almost identical) to the forward
flows process.
Table 1 — Events for Unsuccessful Delivery
Forward Flow Event Return Flow (unsuccessful delivery)
1) Item in hands of first The item/parcel is already in the hands of the first LSP.
LSP
Has become irrelevant.
2a) Not Applicable LSP managed disposal completed
2b) Item in transit to This applies in case the first LSP cannot itself execute the delivery to the agreed
destination country upon return location mentioned above
3) Item arrived in the This applies in case the first LSP cannot itself execute the delivery to the agreed
country of destination upon return location mentioned above
4) Item held by Cus- This can apply in case the first LSP cannot itself execute the delivery to the
toms agreed upon return location mentioned above
5) Item released by This can apply in case the first LSP cannot itself execute the delivery to the
Customs agreed upon return location mentioned above
6) Item in the hands of This generally applies in case the first LSP cannot itself execute the delivery to
deliverer the agreed upon return location mentioned above.
However, in case the first LSP executes the delivery to the return location, this
LSP shall record this event.
7) Item is at collection Generally, does not apply for this Return flow process. In case of a natural person
point sending the parcel in the forward flow, the return location can also be a collection
point.
8) Unsuccessful deliv- Generally, does not apply for this Return flow process.
ery attempt
See comment above
9) Delivery success Generally, applies for this Return flow process.
However, an item can get lost along the way.
The original identifiers as well as the original labels are still attached to the parcel.
To enable to easily “connect” the Return flow activities with the forward flow activities in information systems,
the original identifiers shall be used as primary identifiers for the parcel in the harmonized events also for the
Return flow context.
Parcels related to an Unsuccessful Delivery should not be relabelled for the returns flow.
Relabelling in the context of this document means that the new labels will also have new different identifiers
on them. Proper and timely exchange of information related to the original identifiers for the parcel among the
stakeholders involved (that the parcel has entered into a return flow and it is now to be transported to the
return location) would make such relabelling an unnecessary, cumbersome, costly and time-consuming activity.
The information associated with the original parcel identifier shall be shared across all stakeholders
involved in the returns flow process in advance of them physically taking possession of the parcel.
This will ensure that these stakeholders will correctly process the parcel as part of the returns flow process.
More specifically, the “Delivery process unsuccessful” event will have to be shared with the stakeholders
involved in the forward flow. Then all parties involved in the returns flow will know what to do with the parcel
when scanning the original labels and identifiers.
NOTE This document expects the information related to the parcel being returned will be exchanged in advance of
the parcel being handed over to the next stakeholder or operator.
Even though the item never left the possession of the last mile LSP and the original labels and identifiers are
intact on the item, in current practice, an LSP can still decide to add labels on the item that clearly indicate the
item is now in the returns flow process. These labels are intended to help the LSP involved in the returns flow
process avoid re-inserting the item back into the original forward flows process.
However, there are no standards for such a returns flow label; currently each LSP creates its own specific label
for this purpose, which limits the benefits to only the last mile LSP.
5.2.3 Return to sender or equivalent party
Nowadays, many parcels are “left” at the delivery location without a handover to a natural person (so-called
“unattended deliveries”).
According to the definition for accepted (see discussion below also), these parcels cannot be considered
accepted.
Nevertheless, these would be considered “successful” deliveries also in line with CEN/TS 18055-1 for the
forward flows. However, there is a strong likelihood that some proportion of those “successfully delivered”
parcels end up as “return-to-sender”.
There are essential differences between the scenarios covered in the bullets in the “Scope” clause above:
— In the case of bullet 1 or 2, the parcel would be intact and the original labels and parcel identifier as used
for the forward flow would be available on the item. In the case of bullet 3, the parcels that enter into the
return flow will generally have new labels affixed and new identifiers associated with them.
— In the case of the first bullet, the last mile operator remains in possession of the parcel throughout the
process, whereas in the other two cases the parcel has been in possession of the receiver or the recipient
for some time.
Large numbers of parcels are returned to the sender. The parcel has been in the possession of the recipient for
some time before the recipient transfers the parcel back into the possession of the LSP that made the delivery
associated with the forward flow.
In the Return-to-Sender scenario, the parcel shall
1) Be intact, meaning it should not have been opened and the original labels should also still be attached and
intact.
2) Not be accepted by the recipient.
Determining the second requirement has been met (or not) depends on the following factors:
— The recipient has actively confirmed the handover of the item to him/her personally in some credible
format. This can include a signature (on paper, on glass or some electronic means). This the so-called
“attended delivery” or “personal delivery”. This delivery can also be the confirmed handover to the
recipient at a collection point, parcel locker or other location where the “confirmation in credible format”
will be recorded.
— In the case that there is no such confirmation, we are dealing with the so-called “unattended delivery”. In
this case, the recipient can still have accepted the item if the recipient has entered into an explicit agreement
with the last mile operator that an unattended delivery is automatically accepted by the recipient. The exact
form and conditions of the agreement are determined between the recipient and the last mile LSP (in
compliance with local laws and regulations). These agreements are not in scope for this document.
If both of the numbered requirements above have been met, the parcel will enter in the Return-to-Sender flow
(see Table 2).
The last mile LSP shall offer at least one way for the receiver or recipient to transfer the parcel back into the
hands of the last mile LSP. This document does not cover the various ways to return the parcel that last mile LSP
can offer to the recipients.
In principle, the transport execution process for this return-to-sender flow is identical to the forward flows
process.
Table 2 — Events for Return-to-Sender or equivalent party
Forward Flow Event Return Flow (Return-to-Sender)
1) Item in hands of first The item/parcel is returned back into the hands of the first LSP
LSP
2) Item in transit to This applies in case the first LSP cannot itself execute the delivery to the agreed
destination country upon return location mentioned above
3) Item arrived in the This applies in case the first LSP cannot itself execute the delivery to the agreed
country of destination upon ret
...